Tim Miller: Possible Lawsuit against Casey

[LinasK]

C'mon, stick around. She was a bit harsh but I think you both have points.

:truce:I'm sorry if she was offended, but how was that harsh???:waitasec: I don't consider the photos that Jose presented to be evidence, I don't see how they can be, they prove nothing. Photos don't prove that Caylee was able to open the sliding door, actually did so, or even climbed up the ladder by herself- that is my point. It's all insinuation on Jose's part, which was fine for the jury from him, yet they would've required actual videotape of the murder from the prosecution in order to be able to connect the Chloroform dots...:twocents:

 

[BigFatMommyDog]

Linask !

sorry I goofed up your nic! -(bad , bad mommydog bad bad!)

 

[LambChop]

:truce:I'm sorry if she was offended, but how was that harsh???:waitasec: I don't consider the photos that Jose presented to be evidence, I don't see how they can be, they prove nothing. Photos don't prove that Caylee was able to open the sliding door, actually did so, or even climbed up the ladder by herself- that is my point. It's all insinuation on Jose's part, which was fine for the jury from him, yet they would've required actual videotape of the murder from the prosecution in order to be able to connect the Chloroform dots...:twocents:

I think it's because we were not talking about whether or not we believe the evidence presented by JB. The issue we were discussing had to do with whether or not JB presented it as a theory from his own mind and thoughts or was he going by what KC had told him what happened to Caylee. Whether or not is was the truth from KC was not the issue. It was where did he get his information...was it made up or did KC tell him Caylee drowned? What we were saying is that JB presented it to the court not as a theory but by what KC had told him. He did not say this "could" have happened, he said it did and went on to explain everything KC told him about her father finding Caylee and what he said to her. We all know it's a lie. But the issue was that KC did not testify so therefore it can't be considered as fact. If this were so the judge would have had to have given the jury instructions that the drowning should not be considered. JB would have been instructed that he could not use this theory in his closing argument because he failed to prove his theory.

Because KC did not testify some are saying that the drowning excuse can't be used against her in a civil court. JB was her attorney and was speaking for her. Unless he presented it as theory anything he said on her behalf would be coming from her otherwise he is lying to the court. If JB were to say Caylee choked on a piece of gum and KC told him Caylee drowned he would by lying to the court. jmo

 

[cityslick]

I think it's because we were not talking about whether or not we believe the evidence presented by JB. The issue we were discussing had to do with whether or not JB presented it as a theory from his own mind and thoughts or was he going by what KC had told him what happened to Caylee. Whether or not is was the truth from KC was not the issue. It was where did he get his information...was it made up or did KC tell him Caylee drowned? What we were saying is that JB presented it to the court not as a theory but by what KC had told him. He did not say this "could" have happened, he said it did and went on to explain everything KC told him about her father finding Caylee and what he said to her. We all know it's a lie. But the issue was that KC did not testify so therefore it can't be considered as fact. If this were so the judge would have had to have given the jury instructions that the drowning should not be considered. JB would have been instructed that he could not use this theory in his closing argument because he failed to prove his theory.

Because KC did not testify some are saying that the drowning excuse can't be used against her in a civil court. JB was her attorney and was speaking for her. Unless he presented it as theory anything he said on her behalf would be coming from her otherwise he is lying to the court. If JB were to say Caylee choked on a piece of gum and KC told him Caylee drowned he would by lying to the court. jmo

The problem you have is you are going off the assumption that KC told JB to say all the things in court. You are also going off the assumption that KC told TM she was missing. Was there anyone else that heard that conversation that will testify on TM's behalf?

And how are you going to get this information from JB? The second you ask JB if KC asked him to say all this stuff (about the drowning), he's going to invoke client/attorney privilege. Let's take it a step further. What if the defense brings in some psychologist (like the criminal trial) that comes up with some off the wall theory that Casey in her mind when she talked to TM convinced herself that Caylee was 'missing'?

Greene does have a point about opening the door for every volunteer could sue for damages for engaging in a false search. At what point do you draw the line?

 

[coco puff]

The problem you have is you are going off the assumption that KC told JB to say all the things in court. You are also going off the assumption that KC told TM she was missing. Was there anyone else that heard that conversation that will testify on TM's behalf?

And how are you going to get this information from JB? The second you ask JB if KC asked him to say all this stuff (about the drowning), he's going to invoke client/attorney privilege. Let's take it a step further. What if the defense brings in some psychologist (like the criminal trial) that comes up with some off the wall theory that Casey in her mind when she talked to TM convinced herself that Caylee was 'missing'?

Greene does have a point about opening the door for every volunteer could sue for damages for engaging in a false search. At what point do you draw the line?

ooh ooh ooh .... i know i know.... don't kill your kid and lie about it, then you won't have to worry about any stinking line.

 

[LambChop]

The problem you have is you are going off the assumption that KC told JB to say all the things in court. You are also going off the assumption that KC told TM she was missing. Was there anyone else that heard that conversation that will testify on TM's behalf?

And how are you going to get this information from JB? The second you ask JB if KC asked him to say all this stuff (about the drowning), he's going to invoke client/attorney privilege. Let's take it a step further. What if the defense brings in some psychologist (like the criminal trial) that comes up with some off the wall theory that Casey in her mind when she talked to TM convinced herself that Caylee was 'missing'?

Greene does have a point about opening the door for every volunteer could sue for damages for engaging in a false search. At what point do you draw the line?

I am not assuming anything. I am going by the decision the judge made that JB presented this as fact coming from his client. If anyone was assuming it was JP. He made the decision that JB was speaking for his client and that this is what he was told because the "drowning" evidence he presented in court did not prove Caylee drowned. JB never said she could have drowned, he said she did and gave a detailed description of what KC said as proof she drowned. He represents her. It does not mean she was telling the truth.

There are two assumtions here for the judge. Either JB's client told him Caylee drowned or he's lying because he never presented it as a theory to the court. Also notice how KC balled her eyes out at his description of what happened that day. Now are we saying that this was a deliberate fraud on the court by both JB and KC? If so couldn't her verdict be overturned. I mean he was walking a fine line if he thinks he will now say it was only a theory. He's already in trouble and I don't think JB would want to go there and I doubt CM would allow him to do that. JB was very clear in his opening statements about what was only a theory.

The jury and the public at large believe that JB was telling the court what KC had told him. Problem is it was a lie and we all know it was a lie. Did she tell him, we don't know but he presented it to the court throughout the whole trial that this was a fact and that Caylee had drowned. It would be no different than if KC got on the stand herself and lied. JB just did that for her.

No one has to ask JB anything we have already heard the evidence in court. She will have to defend JB's statement in civil court or deny it. At this point she is playing games to get the media money offers higher for a truthful statement from her. She is reaping what she has sowed and is still continuing to do so. If every volunteer chooses to sue her it may finally get through to her that crime does not pay. So far she is oblivious to the fact. It's just not good to reward people for hurting others. It sets a bad precedent. jmo

 

[Oldsoul2]

He mentioned it in closing statement, too and during the trial as fact. He also told CA that KC had told him to tell her that Caylee had drowned. Was JB lying to CA and the court???? jmo

IMO he used the only theory that would make the most sense and would create resonable doubt. I wasn't surprised that was the claim. When I say "theory" I mean I do not believe that is what happened and yes he did lie because his "theory" didn't need to be proven.

Pool solution contains the same chemicals as chloroform, so believing that the traces in her trunk could have explained the transport to the woods and why it was there "could" make sense. This theory also allowed to sound very probable, considering that many children die from pool drownings in Florida every year and also that it makes it an "accident" not a murder (although IMO that's child neglect, which she wasn't charged for and should have been based on this theory, watch your children!) This all made her out to look like a scared mother over an accident and that she panicked as opposed to the vile demon she really is. Throwing the GA theory in there, created pity for her, as JB intended it to do by giving the impression that she was a sexually abused child and it would explain her bizzare lack of concern where it came to her child. They covered most bases in this defense.As a matter of fact, I have read that some of the jurors have now read alot of material after the trial was said and done about things they did not hear in court and said her guilt was more apparent.

He still does not have to prove that theory to this day.

 

[NavySubMom]

:truce:I'm sorry if she was offended, but how was that harsh???:waitasec: I don't consider the photos that Jose presented to be evidence, I don't see how they can be, they prove nothing. Photos don't prove that Caylee was able to open the sliding door, actually did so, or even climbed up the ladder by herself- that is my point. It's all insinuation on Jose's part, which was fine for the jury from him, yet they would've required actual videotape of the murder from the prosecution in order to be able to connect the Chloroform dots...:twocents:

I am saying they WERE considered "legal" evidence in a Court of Law, per Judge Perry. For trial purposes, they WERE considered EVIDENCE. That was my point.

I was not stating my OPINION, as you are, that the photos and CA testimony were "evidence" IN THIS TRIAL! :banghead:

If you do not submit evidence regarding something that you as an attorney state during opening statements (i.e., GA molestation theory, NO evidence was presented, therefore the Judge did NOT let JB argue molestation in Closing Arguments), you cannot argue about it or MENTION it even during Closing Arguments.

Judge Perry DID let JB argue about the drowning in closing arguments as JB did present evidence about it. No matter how good or bad the evidence was, JB did present evidence regarding a drowning.


JB's evidence passed the legal test per the Judge, and was EVIDENCE IN THE TRIAL is what I was saying.

Whatever......you are not seeing what I am saying at all.


IMO, MOO, etc.

 

[cityslick]

ooh ooh ooh .... i know i know.... don't kill your kid and lie about it, then you won't have to worry about any stinking line.

You missed the point of my question. It's the reason I brought up the runaway bride case upthread. Shouldn't all the volunteers who searched for the Wilbanks girl now have legal grounds to sue (and win) because it turns out she wasn't really missing in the first place?

 

[cityslick]

I am saying they WERE considered "legal" evidence in a Court of Law, per Judge Perry. For trial purposes, they WERE considered EVIDENCE. That was my point.

I was not stating my OPINION, as you are, that the photos and CA testimony were "evidence" IN THIS TRIAL! :banghead:

If you do not submit evidence regarding something that you as an attorney state during opening statements (i.e., GA molestation theory, NO evidence was presented, therefore the Judge did NOT let JB argue molestation in Closing Arguments), you cannot argue about it or MENTION it even during Closing Arguments.

Judge Perry DID let JB argue about the drowning in closing arguments as JB did present evidence about it. No matter how good or bad the evidence was, JB did present evidence regarding a drowning.

Therefore, I was saying FCA ADMITTED HER DAUGHTER DROWNED on July 16 through her attorney.

JB's evidence passed the legal test per the Judge, and was EVIDENCE IN THE TRIAL is what I was saying.

Whatever......you are not seeing what I am saying at all.


IMO, MOO, etc.

My simple question that I wish someone would answer is 'Is there precedent for this'? Has someone been sued successfully because not of what they said, but what their attorney said.

To this date, the legal system has not proven that Casey Anthony knew for a fact her daughter wasn't missing when TES got involved. That's the only reason why I think the case is on shaky ground IMO.

 

[NavySubMom]

My simple question that I wish someone would answer is 'Is there precedent for this'? Has someone been sued successfully because not of what they said, but what their attorney said.

To this date, the legal system has not proven that Casey Anthony knew for a fact her daughter wasn't missing when TES got involved. That's the only reason why I think the case is on shaky ground IMO.

O.K., I see what you are asking, and I am not a lawyer nor a chemist so I don't know about precedent.....did you ask in the Ask the Lawyer's thread? are they still around to answer?

IMO, MOO, etc.

 

[LambChop]

IMO he used the only theory that would make the most sense and would create resonable doubt. I wasn't surprised that was the claim. When I say "theory" I mean I do not believe that is what happened and yes he did lie because his "theory" didn't need to be proven.

Pool solution contains the same chemicals as chloroform, so believing that the traces in her trunk could have explained the transport to the woods and why it was there "could" make sense. This theory also allowed to sound very probable, considering that many children die from pool drownings in Florida every year and also that it makes it an "accident" not a murder (although IMO that's child neglect, which she wasn't charged for and should have been based on this theory, watch your children!) This all made her out to look like a scared mother over an accident and that she panicked as opposed to the vile demon she really is. Throwing the GA theory in there, created pity for her, as JB intended it to do by giving the impression that she was a sexually abused child and it would explain her bizzare lack of concern where it came to her child. They covered most bases in this defense.As a matter of fact, I have read that some of the jurors have now read alot of material after the trial was said and done about things they did not hear in court and said her guilt was more apparent.

He still does not have to prove that theory to this day.

The A's never used chlorine in their pool. They used a non chemical cleaner. So the chloroform did not come from their pool water.

The difference between a theory and a fact (as you know it) are the words "could have died" and "died". JB never said "could have died" in any of the evidence he brought up in court. There was no proof presented that proved Caylee drowned. Nothing scientific, no statements of witnesses that saw what happened, only his client. JB presented it to the court with personal information that could only come from KC in his statement about what happened that Caylee died on June 16, 2008 from an accidential drowning. If his client never told him that he was lying. He never said this is what could have happened he said it did happen.

Unless KC comes forward, and she has had the opportunity to do so through her parents, and claims her attorney was lying, that this was not what she told him, we are led to believe what JB said in court was information he received from his client. jmo

 

[LambChop]

You missed the point of my question. It's the reason I brought up the runaway bride case upthread. Shouldn't all the volunteers who searched for that girl now have legal grounds to sue (and win) because it turns out she wasn't really missing in the first place?

The whole basis of ZG's case is that KC had a chance to say this was not the right person while she was on the jailhouse tape released to the public and she refused. KC then tells her mother that "that woman from Kissimmee" was not cleared by her because she had not seen her picture (when, if fact, she did). CA then went out as KC's "representative" and repeated what KC claimed. KC is responsible for what her representative claims in a court of law. She is responsible for the action.

The State is requesting reimbursement from KC for money spent looking for a missing child that she knew was dead. KC has never denied that what JB has said is not true, that Caylee did not drown. Judge Perry was very clear with JB about what is theory and do you have evidence to support it and what do you know as fact. JB stated what KC told him as fact, not theory.

At the end of the day it appears KC's lies will catch up with her. If she were to get on the stand and say the drowning was a lie, she makes ZG's case. If she let's people assume Caylee drowned she makes ZG's case. KC is caught up in her own lies and it does not matter whether she testified to the drowning or not. What matters is what she will say in the civil court trial. jmo

 

[2goldfish]

My simple question that I wish someone would answer is 'Is there precedent for this'? Has someone been sued successfully because not of what they said, but what their attorney said.

To this date, the legal system has not proven that Casey Anthony knew for a fact her daughter wasn't missing when TES got involved. That's the only reason why I think the case is on shaky ground IMO.

my bold.


this is the why of the questions morgan is asking her in the depo - to lock her into her tale. and she doesnt want to do that hence the real reason for taking the 5th.

 

[Concerned Papa]

You missed the point of my question. It's the reason I brought up the runaway bride case upthread. Shouldn't all the volunteers who searched for that girl now have legal grounds to sue (and win) because it turns out she wasn't really missing in the first place?

I am a volunteer who searched. I don't want anything from Casey Anthony or anyone connected with her except for them to shut up and disappear.

 

[cityslick]

The whole basis of ZG's case is that KC had a chance to say this was not the right person while she was on the jailhouse tape released to the public and she refused. KC then tells her mother that "that woman from Kissimmee" was not cleared by her because she had not seen her picture (when, if fact, she did). CA then went out as KC's "representative" and repeated what KC claimed. KC is responsible for what her representative claims in a court of law. She is responsible for the action.

The State is requesting reimbursement from KC for money spent looking for a missing child that she knew was dead. KC has never denied that what JB has said is not true, that Caylee did not drown. Judge Perry was very clear with JB about what is theory and do you have evidence to support it and what do you know as fact. JB stated what KC told him as fact, not theory.

At the end of the day it appears KC's lies will catch up with her. If she were to get on the stand and say the drowning was a lie, she makes ZG's case. If she let's people assume Caylee drowned she makes ZG's case. KC is caught up in her own lies and it does not matter whether she testified to the drowning or not. What matters is what she will say in the civil court trial. jmo

I wasn't talking about ZG's case though. I thought we were talking about TM and TES.

 

[cityslick]

O.K., I see what you are asking, and I am not a lawyer nor a chemist so I don't know about precedent.....did you ask in the Ask the Lawyer's thread? are they still around to answer?

IMO, MOO, etc.

I have not but that's a good idea.

 

[LambChop]

I wasn't talking about ZG's case though. I thought we were talking about TM and TES.

LOL. We are...I got on the wrong train track. lol

 

[cityslick]

LOL. We are...I got on the wrong train track. lol

FWIW I believe ZG does have legal grounds for her case and perhaps has a better shot of winning than TM. But that's another thread. :innocent:

 

[LambChop]

bbm, and IMO, thus the appeal of the lying convictions, from 4x down to 1x, she has already served her time for that, and the $$ fine is a drop in the bucket, stall stall stall and more delays.

I really hope this Judge makes her finally speak and make her answer questions and not hide behind pleading the 5th. I, for one, cannot wait to hear what FCA has to say, proven liar or not. and I want to watch her face and eyes and body language while she is saying it.

I think her story, should her special treatment cease and she actually be made to tell it, is going to be something like the "seizure" nonsense CA spewed in Phil, or some kind of "blackout", where she will say she has no actual memory of what actually happened, and she still has no memory today of what actually happened, and therefore she cannot be held responsible in any way, shape, or form.

because that is how she rolls, no responsibility for anything, ever. If Cynthia can step forward in these 2 cases as a witness and take some kind of responsibility from FCA again, IMO, she will.

IMO, MOO, etc.

Not sure it is possible to have had a seizure, be texting, on the computer and talking on her cell which it appears she was doing during the time of the drowning. I never got why those pings, texting info were not used in rebuttal to prove Caylee could not have drowned unless it was between her constant electronic activities which only slowed and was quiet after her father left for work????

I think TM has as good a chance as any to get money back. How many people are fed up with misuse of funds that have been donated to help the less fortunate??? jmo